July the 4th

So America was a place of which lovers and young people dreamed. If one could only manage to get the price of passage, he could count his troubles at an end.

This quote is Sinclair's depiction of the naïve belief by poor European immigrants who come to America. These immigrants, according to Sinclair, are tricked into the beliefs that they can find steady work, high wages, and a comfortable life in America. Sinclair is careful not to portray his characters as greedy, but only as average people looking for decency in their life.

The capitalist forces of America, however, work against this immigrant belief. It is a lie that brings in cheap labor. Immigrants, instead of obtaining a decent life, enter a life of cruelty in which they become a means of production in order to grow the wealth of an elite class. The use of language such as "lovers and young people" exemplifies Sinclair's belief that this lie of the American dream persuades the naïve into a life of wage slavery.
The Jungle Quotes | GradeSaver

Howard Schultz: 'The American Dream Is in Jeopardy' - Yahoo! Finance

Al

Here is a little 4 of July history test. I got 9 of 11.

Know It All: Fourth of July Trivia | Gallery | Glo


Also with all the fires and dry conditions around the country we avoid using all these nasty fireworks, why you might even hurt yourself and then you have to rely on Obama’s health-care and that could get really scary.

So rather then do anything “dangerous” like that here is a better way to light up the night sky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al_nq...eature=related

You're so right, Bizzy. Thomas Jefferson once said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear firearms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Truer words have never been spoken.

Gotta quote my 'favorite', Reagan; "12 scariest words; We are from the Fedreal gov't, and we are here to help!" And, "Any Gov't powerful enough to give the citesenry everything they want and need, is powerful enough to take away everything they need and want" And, particularly with Obummercare; "You can NOT possibly 'socialise' the Dr.'s (as in 'socialised medicine') without ALSO 'socialising' the patients!" I may not have the quotes verbatim, but thats the essence.

I suspect, Rick, that 'if I were them', I would plan on using discrediting, thru the mainstream media, as my 'first line of defence'; as in (On November 23 or 24th, 2012 newscast) "A group of people no one has ever heard of showed up at the capitol today, CLAIMING to be the 'Constitutionally elected representatives of the people'. (Eyes rolling) After a brief scuffle, they were escorted off the Capitol grounds, by Capitol police, who report there were no arrests.Details at 10, film at 11.
Now on an interesting note; recall the 'granny' bus monitor, who was 'bullied' on the school bus, and film of the incident was posted on the I-net? Well, Police are now investigating claims she put the kids up to it, and it was all part of an elaborate scam! For the latest, we go to our reporter in the field,....."
Misdirection and distraction,...the 'Magicians art'; "Nothing up my sleeve!"

VERY similar to how we saw Dr. Pauls campaign treated, with barely concealed derision and contempt, dismissing it as 'irrelevent and unimportant'. I SUSPECT that would be 'step 1'. If THAT wasn't sufficient, find a bunch of 'stuff' to discredit the 'leaders'; either kid stuff on their 'puters, or 'radical agenda' etc.

And YES, Bizzy, isn't it a SHAME, what 'we've' become, and allowed to happen!

What IS the limit, on the Congresses Taxing authority? Could they make us eat Broccholi, or pay a tax, er,...'penalty',...er,...WHATEVER if we DON'T
After all, 'everyone else' PAYS for our poor health, (an argument even easier to make under O'bummercare)as a rsult of our 'poor eating habits'; we are basically taking a 'free ride'? So, shouldn't we have to pay a 'penalty', in order to encourage us to 'eat right'?

And if the 'Mandate' to the States was considered 'Co-ercive', and therefore 'struck down', how can the People be treated differently; that is, how is it that the 'penalty', er,..'Tax,....er WHATEVER isn't coercive?!!!

Render unto the FED, that which IS 'the Feds', I guess. Once we agreed to accept pieces of paper, printed by the FED, (or even by the Gov't) as having some value, we set ourselves on this path.Jim

Yes that is one possibility. However there is another, and in this one the military steps in and says wait a minute “These are the constitutionally elected representatives of the new united States and you are the ones that are here illegally and you will leave or we will forcibly remove you”. Now wouldn’t that be something to see on the 10:00 o’clock news?

From what I have been reading this could be a very real possibility.

In the mean time there is a lot going on just under the MSM’s radar to strip power from the powers-that-be. The scandal with the Bank of England, the trillion dollar lawsuit against the FED, the Rico charges against George Soro and Donald Trump. Is this just all a coincidence? Or are we watching a high stake chess game?

On July 2, private investigator Susan Daniels filed suit in Ohio to have Barry stricken from the Ohio election ballots on the basis that he has been using a fraudulent Social Security number for 25 years, and is thus ineligible. By now, nearly everyone is aware of Barry's Connecticut issued SS number, and is also aware that Barry was 15 years of age and living in Hawaii at the time the card was issued. Barry has consistently used this card over the years, and as recently as 2009 when filing his tax return. The fact that his SS# prefix of 042 means that the number was issued in Connecticut, a state he had not even visited in the first 15 years of his life, is not Barry's only problem. Daniels, who was one of the first investigators to uncover Barry's fraudulent SS#, also found that the same number had been issued to someone born in 1890, who had been living in Connecticut in the 1970's. Presumably, that 80+ year old person had never found reason to apply for a SS card earlier, but found that he needed it to claim old age benefits when his savings dwindled. It is not only unusual for someone to be assigned a SS# that was assigned to a different person at an earlier time, it is virtually impossible. That is because when a person becomes deceased, their SS# is retired and is never to be used again. So, there are legitimate and obvious reasons why Barry's SS# is fraudulent, and authorities are going to find it very difficult to dismiss her court case. To ensure that she has adequate "standing" for this case to move forward, and with a timely decision, Daniels has established herself as a write-in candidate for President on the Ohio ballot. Her claim, of course, would be that for the state of Ohio to allow a fraud to oppose her on the ballot would not only be unjust, but could very likely cause her to lose the election, thus causing her irreparable harm.

By law, the Social Security Administration will have kept on microfilm a copy of the original SS-5 application attached to a particular Social Security Number, and this would allow verification of the person born in 1890 having been issued the number. Daniels, however, does not have access to that microfilm, as the SS Administration has not approved her repeated requests to view and copy it. That could quickly change, however, if Daniels' case is properly advanced. Note that her case names the Ohio secretary of state John Husted as a defendant who has been adequately notified by Daniels that Barry is ineligible to be placed on the ballot, and demands that Husted strike Barry's name from any and all Ohio ballots. Thus, it would appear that the only way Husted could keep Barry's name on the ballot would be if he could successfully prove that Barry's SS# was not fraudulently obtained and used, as Daniels says, and that of course would be virtually impossible. Therefore, this case has all the elements that could prove to be the most likely one to succeed.

A short video about this breaking news is now available, and can be seen here.

Those who assume that the millions of illegal aliens working in the United States are adding to revenues collected by the IRS should take notice of this:

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that in the 2010 tax year alone, more than 3 million returns were filed with ITINs. Approximately 2.3 million paid no federal income taxes, and also collected a cumulative $4 billion in tax refunds. ITIN's, which are Individual Tax Identification Numbers, are used by persons, such as illegal aliens, who do not have, and are ineligible to obtain a legitimate SS number. When applying for ITIN's, the applicant must provide only simple forms of identification which are easily forged, and apparently the IRS not only does not bother to check for validity of such documents, but IRS employees are also actually told to ignore the situation! Howard Antelis, a tax examiner at the IRS’ ITIN processing center in Austin, Texas, explained to an investigative reporter at Indianapolis television station WTHR-TV, which conducted a 4 month investigation into the matter: “We were being told by upper management to ignore fraud, to assign ITIN numbers and … pay out refunds to people who are lying. It’s a license to steal when you allow that.”

What these facts show is that more than 66% of persons filing in this manner paid absolutely no taxes whatever, and that the average refund (actually from 'earned income credit' and 'child tax credits') amounted to well over a thousand dollars. That of course amounts to a large sum of "money" ($4 billion in taxpayer dollars) being given to illegals who file such returns. Also keep in mind that 3 million returns only accounts for about 1/7th of the number of illegal aliens currently living in the US, many of which are otherwise milking the system to obtain free medical care, education, food, and shelter, all at enormous taxpayer expense.

With the "cat out of the bag," so to speak, pressure was brought on Congress to investigate this abuse. As a result, the IRS is now undergoing a one-year audit probing this scam. To my knowledge, this is the first time ever that the IRS, infamous for its relentless audits of US taxpayers, is facing an audit for their own improper activities and paperwork. How delightful! Of course if Holder's injustice department is handling the probe then nothing substantial in the way of penalties or imprisonment against those responsible for this scam is likely to occur.

Al

Barry and Hillary are planning to sign on to the UN GUN BAN TREATY on July 27th, just 3 short weeks away. For the treaty to become effective as US Law, the US Senate must first ratify the treaty. But does anyone here think that is a far fetched possibility? I don't. The Democrat Progressives and establishment Republicans who now control the Corporation US Senate are big on gun control. Once ratified, a treaty is considered as law of the land, and this treaty is no different. The UN would have the power to determine what guns, if any at all, can be sold to, or held by, US citizens, and violations of such UN rulings would result in confiscation as well as likely jail time.

Hillary and friends claim the sole purpose of the UN Arms Trade Treaty is to stop terrorism and crime. But the truth is, this abominable treaty would do nothing more that prevent Americans from defending themselves against terrorism, crime, and tyranny alike. Those who would commit such acts will never give up their guns. Mexico's gun ban has resulted in the worst violence and killing spree that nation has ever encountered, leaving civilians at the mercy of unmerciful drug cartels and killers who remain heavily armed, and yet Mexico still thinks their gun ban law was a good idea. In fact, when Canada very recently filed an emergency petition to exclude hunting rifles from the upcoming United Nations Arms Treaty - Mexico objected. Worse yet, THE UNITED STATES REMAINED SILENT! What does that tell you?

Let me make a short, opening, blanket comment. There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody — except bad people...
Charlton Heston, on NBC's Meet the Press, May 18, 1997.

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
Adolf Hitler, dinner talk (April 1942), in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44:
Guns - Wikiquote

Part 4 Adolf Hitler - The greatest story NEVER told! - YouTube

Al

Rick,
Are we completely POWERLESS to stop them from signing this treaty? I can't believe we have allowed ourselves to be in this position, with only these two speaking for all of us.
Is it to late to have any effect on this? We still have 3 weeks.
How many people even know this is coming up?, I did not.
Thanks & Regards, Gene

Hi Gene,

I'm sure there is nothing we can do to prevent Barry and Hillary from signing on to this UN treaty. And while it is not impossible for us to have some effect on the Senate decision on treaty ratification, my belief is that the Senate would be happy to oblige and do the Ruling Class this favor. Remember that people in the House of Representatives react differently than those on the Senate because they are all up for reelection in November. Senators serve 6 year terms, and only 1/3 of them will be up for reelection, so it is only likely that 1/3 would care what their constituents are saying. The others know that two to four years down the road their constituents will largely have forgotten this vote.

By all means we should tell our senators how we expect them to vote on this matter, and why, and let them know we will be watching this decision with great interest. I wouldn't pull any punches, either. Let them know that if they vote to ratify then you will not vote to reelect them for another term, and that you will do everything you possibly can to oppose them. Send them faxes and e-mails, but also be sure to call their office and demand to know how they will vote. Office personnel normally have a stock answer, such as "The senator is currently undecided, but I will pass along your concerns." They do this because they don't want to commit either way, so tell them that's not good enough. Tell them that they either stand for or against our 2nd Amendment rights, and that you demand to know where they stand.

Actually, our right to own and bear arms, although stated in the Constitution's 2nd Amendment, is not what guarantees that right. Yes, it is part of the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments), so most people consider it to be a right that cannot be taken away. Truth is, though, all rights granted by legislators can be taken away by legislators. Our only actual right to bear arms comes from the Declaration of Independence, which recognized our rights and freedoms to be "God given," which was a wise thing to state, for anything "God given" cannot be taken away by man.

Consider this passage from the Declaration of Independence:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." It goes without saying, of course, that if it becomes necessary to exercise this right, the people must be well equipped to carry out that exercise. And the patriots who carried out their resistance movement against the British certainly did not do so with their bare hands.

Also consider this passage:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." -- Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 21, which is older than the U.S. Constitution, which was based, in large part, upon it.


And this one:
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour.” -- George Washington, Address to 1st session of Congress

It wasn't long ago that gasoline prices advanced to around $4 per gallon, and then began falling off each week to reach current levels of around $3.25 per gallon here in northeast US. The two steps forward, one step back routine is of course designed to make consumers think it is time to breathe a sigh of relief, and be thankful that prices didn't stay at, or go above $4. It is supposed to make us think that $3.25 a gallon gas is a bargain. Another reason why gas prices fell somewhat was because it would not have bode well for Barry's reelection if prices had remained at, or shot above, $4. After the election, though, watch out! Prices will likely soar for gas and everything else, especially if Barry is reelected.

Another thing which will begin driving up fuel prices, perhaps even before the election, is the fact that both the US and the European Union are planning to implement sanctions against Iran in an effort to stop Iran from continuing its nuclear enrichment program. One of the sanctions will be to ban insurance companies from providing insurance to ships carrying Iranian oil. With tensions rising, ship owners will be far more than a bit reluctant to carry Iranian oil without insurance, and this will likely result in a dramatic slowdown in Middle East oil exports, thus causing imported US oil to skyrocket.

Barry won't worry much about this scenario, because he will simply blame it on the Iranians, and Democrats will likely agree just as they agree with Barry's claim that everything gone wrong during his term in office is Bush's fault. Funny, isn't it, how politicians will blame each other, and how political parties blame each other, but no blame is laid upon the Ruling Class elite who control these political puppets.

Whats the legality, of signing onto a treaty, which 'violates' the Constitution?
Talking, (of coarse)about this U.N. treaty, on guns.
And, Constitutionally, can the Congress enact laws which impinge on rights granted to the People, by the Costitution? Yeah, I know; stupid question, as they have been chipping away at our rights, for years.
However, I thought the last SCOTUS ruling on Guns, was saying that municipalities (Wash.D.c., as I recall) couldn't pass lwas restricting the right to 'keep and bear'.
Does Congress, uniquley have the 'authority', (under the Constitution) to restrict rights, even tho state and municipal Gov'ts don't?
i.e. COuld, (under the Constitution) the Congress enact Laws restricting gun rights, or free speech, for that matter, and have them upheld by SCOTUS?
If NOT, how can they ratify a treaty which restricts these same rights?
Jim

Truth, Honesty and Integrity need to be evident in government or it doesn't matter who is there or what you do. The first task of a concerned citizen is to identify honest and good people who will act justly when they have to make decisions. I ask myself why the current crop of politicians in DC have not booted out the incumbent and the only reasonable answer I come up with is the majority are in cahoots. Think about it. And act wisely.

Simply signing a proposed treaty has no actual effect, because it must then be ratified by the Senate before it can become international law. Therefore, the treaty itself cannot be considered to violate constitutional law until such time as it is ratified. The question as to whether the US authorities who have conspired to sign and promote a treaty that clearly violates the provisions of the Constitution have done something illegal and/or improper is quite another thing. First of all, those signers should know that they are willfully advocating something that seeks to overturn the Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold and defend. Violation of that oath is nothing less than an act of treason.

The idea that some people have of a treaty having the power to overturn, or trump the Constitution appears to have its origin in a statement made in 1952 when John Foster Dulles, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and who would soon be appointed Secretary of State under Eisenhower, made the following statement: "Congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights."

That statement by Dulles was and is totally absurd. Those who support his statement often point to the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article VI), which is so named because it places federal laws and treaties above stateconstitutions, laws, and treaties. Article VI, however, establishes the supremacy of U.S. laws and treaties made within the bounds of the Constitution. Article VI was considered necessary, by the Founders, because contrary to their agreement under the Articles of Confederation, certain states had violated their trust and entered into treaties with foreign powers. So the intent and purpose of the Supremacy Clause is not at all ambiguous, and should be clearly understood.

We should pay heed to the words spoken by Edmund Burke, who said, "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Those of us who work to preserve the sovereignty of the United States must work to expose the Dulles delusion — the ridiculous idea that treaties have intrinsic powers greater than the Constitution. We can do little to stop the President from signing UN accords and treaties at Copenhagen and other places, but we can render his antics ineffective by ensuring a better informed public.

One portion of Dulles' statement was correct, which is that, "Congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution." The Congress, therefore, cannot pass Acts, Treaties, or Laws that violate provisions of the Constitution. Congress can, however, propose an Amendment to the Constitution that would allow for what they want to do. That only amounts to a proposed change, of course, and to become an actual Amendment would require ratification by two thirds if the states. The Founders included that provision to ensure that the states , and their people, held the ultimate decision in such matters - not the federal government. It is quite clear, historically, that the Constitution never would have been ratified by the states without the Bill of Rights (first ten Amendments) having been included, as these Amendments clearly stated the rights and powers of the states and their people, while limiting the power and scope of the federal government. That is why any proposed law or treaty which in any way violates the provisions included in the Bill of Rights is especially reprehensible.

That said, we must take note that at least three of the later Amendments to the Constitution were either improperly ratified, or never actually ratified at all. I talked about those occurrences in earlier posts, and I see nothing that would prevent those currently seated in the Corporation US Congress, or the administration, from pulling off another similar scam on an unwitting public which so far has been unsuccessful at overturning those unlawful Amendments. There have been challenges to those Amendments, but those challenges have been thwarted by a "justice" system which, as in the Barry eligibility cases, dismisses any such challenge as either being irrelevant or not having standing to proceed. On appeal of such decisions, the SCOTUS has refused to hear the case arguments. As to the Corporation US SCOTUS, I would say that we can safely assume that they will uphold anything that the Ruling Class wants to use to compel our compliance or punishment. We cannot look to the SCOTUS to overrule unconstitutional laws, treaties, or occurrences that violate provisions of the Constitution. No one seated on the current SCOTUS was appointed by a constitutionally elected original jurisdiction President, so in actuality the current SCOTUS has no lawfully granted powers to hear or decide any case brought before them. As long as this is allowed to continue, our constitutional rights and freedoms will be hacked at and disappear one by one until they have fully vanished. That is why it is so important that we ensure our original jurisdiction government is properly and fully restored before the Ruling Class can achieve their final objective.

Eventually, it will very likely come down to a Constitutional showdown between those who think our Constitution has outlived its usefulness, and those who believe that upholding our Constitution as intended by the Founders is imperative for our nation to survive and prosper.

For your clarification, and I DID note, in my post, that our Constitutional rights have ALREADY been 'eroded' over time. Just wanted your take on this particular issue.
By the way, I DID 'get' what you said, earlier.(Just took awhile to 'soak' in); the 'penalty' for NOT getting health insurance (under O'bemmercare0 is NOT the 'TAX'; the TAX is the premium your paying, for the policy. Requiring us to get the policy, IS the tax. I get it, now.
So, then, for those of 'low income', they will get 'help' fromthe Fed. Gov't, in the form of 'vouchers' or tax credits, in order to be able to afford a policy.
So, they are getting a tax 'credit', in order to 'pay' a tax? What convoluted logic 'they' have gone thru, in order to concoct this STUPID thing!

And yes, the 'Battle' you're talkiing about, (between those who believe the Constitution is 'outdated', and those who believe we need to uphold the Constitution) has been going on, for some time. The real question is what ARENA will this battle 'play out', in? So far, it has been in SCOTUS, and in Politics; Repubs/Conservatives at least put on a show of being 'Constitutionalists', and Dems/Libs, while they may give lip service to the Constitution, are clearly of the 'camp' that feels it is unduly restraining on their goal of having a centalised Federal Gov't dictate everything.

Seems there is a real need for a '3rd' party; Libertarians. Unfortunately, while Libertarian ideas and ideals appeal accross party lines, there seem to be a variety of factors that prevent the Libertarian party from gaining any REAL 'traction'.Presumably, THEY are working hard, to discredit Libertarianism, paerhaps even 'organising' an 'official' Libertarian party, that 'goes no where', as a part of discrediting it? Certainly BOTH parties colluded, to destroy the party that organised around Ross Perot, DURING the election, with Repubs (Pat Buchannan) dealing the 'death blow', AFTER the election. So, it IS a kind of 'modus operandi' used succesfully in the past, to deal with any '3rd' party threat.
I note 'America Elect' shut down THEIR operaion. The 'occupy' movement also doesn't seem to being doing anything, as far as organising to put forth an alternative candidate. Tea party IS concentrating on the Senate races, which is SMART, cause an awful lot of stuff goes on in Congress, while the majority of Americans concentrate on the Presidential politics, but the Tea Party SEEMS to have 'accepted' Romoney, unfortunately.So, seems like the effort your 'touting' on a regular basis will be the only VIABLE alternative, to the hack, 2 party no real difference, corrupt politics as usual crap which has got us where we are, which includes a steady eroding of our libertities, etc.

I have NO confidence Romoney will appeal o'bummercare, and suspect his administration would work to ratify this U.N. treaty your talking about. "Same old wine, (and WHINE), in a brand new bottle'. So sad, what we've become!Jim

The United Nations (abbreviated UN in English, and ONU in French and Spanish), is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace.
United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


By Jerome Horowitz

United States acceptance of the United Nations Charter was under the treaty power found in Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution in which various powers of the President are listed. The treaty power provision reads as follows:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.
The question of constitutionality of acceptance of the United Nations Charter under the treaty power hinges on whether the United Nations Charter constitutes a treaty in the sense intended by that provision.

The treaty power is discussed in The Federalist in Numbers 64 written by John Jay, and 75 written by Alexander Hamilton.
It is there clearly indicated that the term "treaty" is used in the Constitution to refer to a bargain or contract between two independent sovereign nations pertaining to subjects that are customarily and traditionally considered to be treaties.

The concept that under the treaty power the President and two-thirds of the Senators present could surrender American independence was completely inconsistent with the limited extent of the authority the Framers felt should be given to the federal government. How out of harmony with constitutional principles such a concept is becomes even clearer when one considers two particular facts. One is that the colonists had only recently fought a bloody and [p. 135] terrible war to gain their independence. The other is their great suspicion and distrust of public officials.(11) In fact, as is pointed out in Chapter 2 of this work, one of their principal objects in designing the Constitution was to protect the people from improper action of government officials. Guided by these thoughts they surely would not have empowered the President and two-thirds of the Senators present to bargain away American independence without the consent of the people.

Inspired Constitution :: The Elders of Israel and the Constitution

Al

Hi Jim
In my wild and crazy youth I was a member of the Libertarian party, even though at the time i was actively working on both of Reagan's campaigns. I was also a member of the Conservative Party for a while when our Tom Ridge was supporting the semi automatic ban when he was trying to become governor.
So I agree there is a need for a 3rd party. However I like many of those who are of the same mind do not want to make the BIG jump to fully embrace 3rd party escpecially on a national level becuase we are afraid that in so doing we will allow the greater of two evils to be elected.
I could not live with myself if I voted for a 3rd party which weakened the republican party enough to allow Komrad Obama to get re-elected.

Another reason why I got away from the Libertarian party is that after college I was concidering a run for for public office. My family is very strong in the party and I was asked to run. So if I wanted to advance in poitics as I did in my youth I had to be in a main stream party. Obviously I didn't persue that mostly because of the skeletons in my closet
Bizzy

There is NO REAL DIFFERENCE, between 'Komrad O'bummer', and 'Komrad Romoney'; THEY ARE THE SAME! This idea, that "if you vote for a 3rd party, you will not only be 'wasting' your vote, but will 'give' the election to the 'other side'" is SPURIOS, as there IS no 'other side'; And, this argument is ONE of the things that keeps a 3rd party from gaining traction.

Komrad Romoney will NOT repeal O'bummer Care, its 'too good' of an issue, for repubs to run on, for them to want to 'lose' it, as a 'rallying point' for their base. Therefore, Repubs aren't going to take it off the table, just as they USE immigration. Dems do the same thing, with Social Insecurity; they USE it, to scare old people into voting democratic, by saying Repubs want to dismantle it.

Both parties put their own, short-term interests above the countries,or the people. Both are in the pockets ofthe Lobbyists, and the interests they represent. And both manipulate the truth, and public opinion, to servetheir interests. So WHY would you continue to support such a system?

I understand what you are saying; but, I ALSO understand how this very 'argument' is being used to keep the status quo; DEMONISE the 'other side', in part so you can then say "Oh, but if you vote for a '3rd party', you'll be enabling this 'other side' (Demon) to win!" Thing is, they are BOTH demons, and NEITHER 'deserves' our support! Otherwise, we'll just continue to get jerked around, the way we always have. "To do the same thing, over and over again, while expecting different results, is a pretty good definition of INSANITY! And, never has it been clearer; voting for ROMONEY is INSANE.
He will simply be an O'bummer 'clone'! No REAL, substantive policy differences between the 2. At least, thats my opinion.Jim

By Jerome Horowitz

One of the most insidious aspects of government paternalism is that it deprives people of the will to be free. By means of continued doses of government welfare, people are transformed from lovers of freedom, motivated by a spirit of independence, to seekers after security unsure of their ability to stand on their own feet with the help of God. They are willing to forget about freedom if the government will promise them security.

This latter condition is little different in principle from a willingness to barter one's own freedom in exchange for a promise of security from a master—in other words to sell oneself into slavery. Slaves have their lives and a considerable freedom of movement if they convince their masters they will do only what their masters wish. Any property they have would be subject to the control of their masters; but this is not of great importance to a slave because he is fed, clothed and housed by his master anyhow.

Inspired Constitution :: The Elders of Israel and the Constitution

Al

Both Americans Elect and the Occupy movement have been proven to have been organized and supported by leftist progressives, a.k.a. marxists.

Regarding Barry's claimed attendance at Columbia University, there is very little to support that as being truthful. Barry, of course, refuses to release any of his college transcripts or applications. The applications, of course, are suspected to contain information that would confirm Barry had applied as a foreign student. Barry claims to have earned a 3.7 grade average during his college years, so why wouldn't he at least be happy to release the transcripts that would prove this? The only logical answer, in my opinion, is that he has no records, and at least one Columbia professor who taught there during the time Barry claims to have attended says that he has no recollection of Barry.


Henry Franklin Graff, professor emeritus of history at Columbia for 46 years, has cast serious doubt on claims that Barry attended classes at the New York City university.
Henry Franklin Graff



“I have no recollection of Barack Obama at Columbia, and I am sure he never attended any of my classes.” Graff has stated. "For 46 years, I taught political history, diplomatic history and one of the pioneering courses on presidential history, and every future politician of note who went through Columbia in those years took one or more of my classes – every one, that is, except Barack Obama. Nobody I knew at Columbia ever remembers Obama being there.”

Does Columbia publish a 'yearbook'? Has anyone LOOKED, to see if there are any pictures of Barry? Granted, it WOULDN'T be conclusive, as there COULD be some 'explanation' for no pictures, ("Lets get this straight; you were 'out sick' all 4 years, JUST when the class pictures were being taken?!!!") but at least it wouldn't require a freedom of info request, or be protected by 'privacy concerns', or whatever.

Difficult to believe college transcripts, ESPECIALLY for a Candidate for office, aren't 'public information'. Once you 'apply' for a job, (highest in the land) you should wave a 'right to privacy', I should think.

Unfortunately, our FF 'depended' on the 'Forth estate', and Freedom of the press, to insure that Candidates were 'properly vetted', and the press has been co-opted, coerced, and corrupted (HEY, the "3-C's"!) just like Congress has.

Jim

Yes, Columbia keeps a collection of all past yearbooks in their Butler Library archives, however these are not available for browsing online according to a Columbia librarian I asked.

Sources who have in fact looked through the Columbiana archives at Butler Library say that Barry is not found in the yearbooks, and is also not shown in a photo of the 1983 Columbia University Black Students Organization, despite claiming to have been involved with the organization.

Tomorrow, Thursday July 12, 2012, starts the final push to pass Audit the Fed (H.R. 459) out of the House and advance one step closer to yanking back the curtain on the Fed’s secrecy.

A full floor vote in the House is just around the corner.

Now they will be on record as to who is against this.

IndianaBoys

http://static4.businessinsider.com/i...0004/libor.jpg
Keiser Report: From Tommy Guns to Credit Guns (E312) - YouTube

Published on Jul 1, 2012 by lnfowar

A story about the fire at the heart of suffering.
Bringing together dancers, musicians, visual artists and 3d animators, the film takes a critical look at the events of the past decade that have shaped our world.

I pet goat II and the NEW WORLD ORDER The beginning of the End - YouTube

Illuminati symbolism . I, Pet Goat II by Heliofant Showing The Next 9/11 False Flag - YouTube


Al

USA is a Constitutional REPUBLIC - NOT a democracy!

Al

That's not quite the "truth," Minoly. Yes, tax revenues at both the state and federal level have fallen during Barry's stay in Washington, and that is all your chart actually shows. The reasons why there are less tax revenues available now than before Barry took office really have nothing to do with people paying lower tax rates under Barry. The actual reasons for the low tax revenues are high unemployment, business failures, cutbacks in consumer spending, a rapid outflow of wealth through persons and businesses relocating to other countries, etc.

Make no mistake about it - the passage of Obamacare placed into effect the largest tax increase in American history, and is only likely to be outdone by the UN carbon tax scheme which Ruling Class puppet Barry is planning to foist upon an unwitting public that foolishly believes it is the oil and utility companies that will pay these taxes. And what did we get for the "stimulus package?" The "stimulus" was a sham that only benefited the Wall Street elite, the banksters, and Federal Reserve. Someone obviously will have to pay for the cost of the "stimulus," and it will be those of us, and our children and grandchildren, who will pay ever increasing taxes in years to come. Quite obviously, there is no way to pay off the nearly 6 trillion increase in the national debt since Barry took office without substantially raising the tax rates on those who do pay taxes. If people think otherwise, they are living in a fantasy world of delusion.